is this directed at me?Friendly reminder to not let personal sniping creep into this folks. Thanks.
is this directed at me?Friendly reminder to not let personal sniping creep into this folks. Thanks.
I've never explored with a shield until 2.0, so what about people in deep space without a shield when 2.0 was released ?
I've landed with very little worry, especially after I've gotten analog vertical thruster control, thanks to android app.it doesnt make sense frontier have told me they will investigate this and have not done anything for over a month! surely this is not meant to be when you can land on landing pads without taking damage, no matter how soft i am with my landing i lose hull! this is a problem when your at sagittarius A,
due to this, frontier have lost another player until the bugs are fixed
ps. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE BUGS, i dont want any idiots commenting: oh they are working on it blah blah blah, ive seen my post get deleted about this so dont get started, they arent doing anything!
the only reason to land (like anything else in exploration) is for screenshots, POI have no interest, materials are just another grind....and without a hanger module, so no need to land anyway. Also, I don't see them moaning about magically gaining a planetary approach suite.
I've landed with very little worry, especially after I've gotten analog vertical thruster control, thanks to android app.
The thing is, if you use downwards thrusters just a bit above a planet, you are giving them a full blast downwards for a short second at full speed, that very easily could be what is causing the damage, you need to touch down lightly not to get damaged.
But there is no way to know what you might be doing wrong, or it might be a bug, without a video of it happening.
I've landed without shield on planets and stations with no damage for quite a while even before I got the app to get virtual analog control.
Yeah, didn't see last page of topic before I posted.I've posted 2 vids on this page, one without and one with analog control, can you please tell me what I'm doing wrong ? or can you post one of yours for comparaison ?
maybe the bug occurs only for some people, it would help to understand if it's a matter of ships, bad luck, skill, hardware, ...
Write up a bug here on the forum, they are working on soooo many things, I don't think it would be that much of an issue to look into this. and link this thread, in the bug report too.Thanks, so far I've tried the ASP Explorer, ASP Scout, Diamondback Scout and Viper.
I need to try it on larger ships, I'll test the Anaconda...
But it's the small ships that are more penalized by this, they need the shield module's space for scanners, hangar, fuel scoop, ...
Write up a bug here on the forum, they are working on soooo many things, I don't think it would be that much of an issue to look into this. and link this thread, in the bug report too.
I've just posted in this thread because some people were denying that the bug even exist.
Not much debate about whether it's a bug, more whether it's a game breaking bug. No way is it a game breaker, imo, unless someone wants to make a drama out of it.
That's a matter of perspective, only a fraction of explorers are affected...
Sorry for off-topic, but it's an airplane-style landing on a prepared for that background using rubber wheels (with degradation=damaged with each usage/subsequent landing), also you've never saw smoke (and sometimes fire=)) ) accompanying this process?=) That not a case of vertical landing on a not at all prepared surface (with all the rocks that are not polished by the atmosphere). Actual relative speed of 0.1 m/s mentioned earlier for real-life space docking is better for approximation.I think FD have dialled up the damage for landing a tad too much. I forgot to turn on my shields when landing my Anaconda once - on a 0.1g planet. My descent rate was about 0.5m/second, and the result was about 8% damage to the hull.
Now, a 747 does that sort of landing all the time on a 1g world (Earth), so... If an Anaconda can't land at the same descent rate as a 747 without damage... Well, I think you get my point.
Boeing build 747's to withstand a touchdown descent rate of about 800fpm (that's about 4m/s). I think it would be quite reasonable if our ships could achieve this same sort of descent rate without damage...
Z...
Yeah, they can't land, but without an SRV they have no need to. They can still go planet side and take pictures from a low hover, of course.
My verdict: small bug, big fuss.
Sorry for off-topic, but it's an airplane-style landing on a prepared for that background using rubber wheels (with degradation=damaged with each usage/subsequent landing), also you've never saw smoke (and sometimes fire=)) ) accompanying this process?=) That not a case of vertical landing on a not at all prepared surface (with all the rocks that are not polished by the atmosphere). Actual relative speed of 0.1 m/s mentioned earlier for real-life space docking is better for approximation.
I think FD have dialled up the damage for landing a tad too much. I forgot to turn on my shields when landing my Anaconda once - on a 0.1g planet. My descent rate was about 0.5m/second, and the result was about 8% damage to the hull.
Now, a 747 does that sort of landing all the time on a 1g world (Earth), so... If an Anaconda can't land at the same descent rate as a 747 without damage... Well, I think you get my point.
Boeing build 747's to withstand a touchdown descent rate of about 800fpm (that's about 4m/s). I think it would be quite reasonable if our ships could achieve this same sort of descent rate without damage...
Z...
It is actually measured with a G load on landing, general tolerance works out around 600 fpm if above max landing weight, that only means the aircraft requires an inspection, you can actually get away with quite a bit higher in most cases.
Anyway, I did some shieldless tests and the damage is way overdone, I performed some incredibly smooth shieldless landings, damage ranged from 0 to 3% These ships have massive Oleo struts, you can clearly see them absorbing the landing. Devs should tweak the damage model.
It's inertial mass and velocity that counts. Landing gear in 3302 also counts on shields in most cases so can be much more fragile than you expected. It's you choice to not use them. Landing gear and all shock-absorbant mechanics are the parts of yours conda hull.A vertical landing would be less stressful then an aircraft style landing, surely? Have you not seen the chunky landing gear of an Anaconda, Asp, or other ships? I'd like to think that in 3302 the landing gear would be capable of enduring at least the same forces commercial passenger aircraft dealt with back in the 1970's (and before)...
Haven't study this question so far, they can be installed. Don't know. If no, there will be scratches at least - at any speed, also below 0.1.Space docking is not the right comparison at all - there is nothing to absorb shock, and no suspension. The landing gear on these things are not rigid...
taking into account conda mass - 400t (?) we have 0.05MJ (if I calculated well) absorbed somewhere in your hull/suspension. Not so many. But may be that kind of "damage" is rather effective=)Now, I repeat - 8% hull damage from about 0.5m/s descent rate on a 0.1g planet. That's more damage than 2 C4 cannons...
Z...